Louis vs Walcott 3?

Nah, the evidence points to me decisively thinking Walcott won.

 

Thing is you also think Whitaker beat Oscar, but if you relied on who the majority of ringside observers voted for you would think opposite.

So being able to see the fight allowed you to develop your own opinion, I imagine this would be the same situation.

If you saw the fight yourself you would most likely score it for Louis.

 

LOL Okay Luf, difference being, the favorite and politics allowed for the more popular money generating fighter to win. As McGrain points out, this is likely one of the only times Louis, being champion, was awarded a victory he likely didn't deserve because he was Joe Louis. Same thing with Oscar, he was the cash cow, there was no way Whitaker was going to beat him that night unless it was ultra decisive. The other marked difference was, and reporters comments on this after, they were swayed by DLH fighting the last 20 seconds of every round and the crowd cheering for him throwing anything whether it landed or not. Similar to the SRL vs. Hagler fight. However, watching it later, with clear views, you can see most of what the crowd was cheering for and looked like it landed, didn't. This is in STARK contrast to the Joe Louis vs. Walcott fight. Louis, was trying to win the last 20 seconds, he wasn't ohhhh and ahhhh the crowd, as he wasn't landing much. So the judges weren't as easily swayed by something that didn't exist. Thus they voted for Walcott. Those two fights are about as different as you can imagine. To say nothing fo the fact, that part of the reason I voted for Pea is because in no way shape or form do I take away a point away from Whitaker for an accidental headbutt. That was one of the dumbest rules I've ever seen. I don't count that, while others did. Again, huge difference. Luf, for me to vote for somebody that get KD twice and never hurt the other guy. For me to vote for a guy who wasn't landing much while the other guy seems to be in complete control and even showboating while doing it? That would take Louis putting some serious hurting on Walcott or a boxing clinic. Nothing of which happened. The evidence points to Walcott likely being the winner, them just the facts bud.

 

As I say mate, you've disagreed with a majority of ringside scores before. Including the Holyfield and Valuev fight as well, another were a huge majority voted for Valuev.

You don't always go with the crowd because you're an individual who makes his own mind up.

I bet me and you would score it identically round for round mate

 

I've finished my p4p list now after many years. Slightly altered since last time I posted it because of my new appreciation for Fitzsimmons and Ketchel.

Walcott sits at 71 p4p and number 4 CW (sub 200 HW fighters)

 

Jersey Joe Walcott didn't have a whole lot left, either.

Walcott only made one successful defense of the title ... against Ezzard Charles, and most of the people at ringside and watching at home thought Charles had regained the title.

In fact, the TV coverage (picture and sound) went out before the decision was announced and people at home were shocked the next day to read that Walcott had gotten the nod.

Arthur Daly of the New York Times said not one of the reporters around him had it for Walcott. The concensus around him was Charles by a score of 11-3-1. He wrote "Could we all have been viewing the same fight?"

Louis won the first two fights, stopping Walcott in the rematch. And Walcott didn't react well against Rocky in fight two after getting knocked out in their first meeting. I don't know if Walcott would've reacted well to Old Joe's punches, either, after getting brutally stopped in their rematch.

Walcott certainly had the skills to win a decision. But he wasn't a dominant force at that point, himself. You could argue Walcott lost five of his last six fights (the only fight he clearly won was his third fight KO against Charles).

It would've been great to see, though.

 

Since Louis-Walcott II in 1948, Louis had retired for two years and only came back because of his enormous tax debt. He lost decisively to Charles in 1950 and was fighting his way back into condition and contention for the title. He was supposed to meet Charles in a rematch in September 1951 but that all changed with Walcott upsetting Charles in Charles-Walcott III. Walcott, on the other hand, had remained active, fighting Ezzard Charles three times before finally knocking out the reigning champion who had twice beaten him previously. From 1948 to 1951 I believe Louis' speed and reflexes had diminished more than Walcott's. We know that Walcott had at least one more great fight left, as evidenced when he met Marciano in real time in 1952. Louis, in keeping active after his 1950 loss to Charles, had probably regained as much of his form as he was going to. I doubt that Walcott stops 1951 Louis, but might he have boxed his way to a decision win, as he was on the way to doing in both Louis fights and in the later Marciano bout as well? Might he get KO'd after being ahead in points as in Louis II and Marciano I? Or might he go down early as in Marciano II? I don't see either fighter stopping the other in 1951 but I believe that at this point Jersey Joe had more left in the tank. I would pick Walcott to win a UD in a very boring fight.

 

Well, again, he likely only won 1 of the fights, not two. It's fine if you want to count the win as a win, my issue is, using fight no. 1 as evidence that he would do well in fight no. 3. He likely should've lost fight no. 1, and Louis was being outboxed in the fight and put down twice. Walcott was showboating and landing the harder blows. Shoot, even giving away the last 3 rounds (which almost all reporters gave to Louis) because Walcott felt he had already done enough and was decidedly ahead; most reporters STILL gave Walcott the fight. What is the logical deduction here? When Walcott was actively trying and not coasting, he was dominating the fight. Evidenced by putting Louis down twice and not once hurt himself. There can be no other logical deduction that can be made. So how is that evidence of Louis "winning" both fights and thus he would the third?

 

After Louis-Walcott II, Louis had more fights than Walcott thru the end of 1951 until Louis lost to Marciano.

I agree that Louis wasn't the same fighter he was when he was champ.

But, since their rematch, Louis had fought and lost to Charles (once) and Marciano (once). Walcott had lost to Charles (twice) and Rex Layne (who wasn't Marciano). When Walcott did fight Marciano, he got knocked out twice.

So it's not like Walcott was facing better competition. They were fighting the same level of fighters. Louis was a little busier. And Louis had already knocked out Walcott.

That's why I'd probably favor Louis, but I agree that Walcott could also win. It probably would've been just as even a matchup in 1951 as it was years earlier.

 

He knocked Walcott out ... and Walcott couldn't do the same. And when Walcott was knocked out by Marciano, he didn't do so hot in the rematch, like the KO affected him.

You act like Walcott was a lot better than Louis. Walcott lost to Charles, too, like Louis did. Walcott lost to Rex Layne (who was no Marciano). And Walcott lost to Marciano by KO (twice) as well.

And, if you want to focus on newspaper accounts, Walcott likely lost his fourth fight with Charles, too. So he wasn't exactly on a roll.

It (Louis-Walcott III) likely would've been an evenly matched fight in 1951 like it was years earlier. Since Louis won both times they fought, and won by brutal KO the last time they met, I'd favor him.

That's all. I'm not saying Louis was a sure thing.

 

If you think about it ... I wonder if Louis and Walcott had taken part in a third fight if their fights would've been remembered more in the same light as the Ali-Frazier fights were?

There was certainly enough action in the first two ... and more knockdowns, too.

 

Have to say this was well thought out, can't add a thing, good posting.

 

Eh? Certainly they were evenly matched in the earlier bouts but by most accounts they weren't evenly fought, Walcott being in charge of both. Walcott didn't need to be able to knock Joe out in order to have the upper hand, decisions are just as valid in boxing. While the winner of Norton-Ali 3 will always be hotly disputed its generally a given that Joe should not have been given the decision in the first go and it doesn't reason why that would make one side with him in a third bout. I can't see Walcott not doing the same in a third fight and having the edge all the way, Joe had lost more of his speed and power by the time that bout could have happened.